April 7, 2011

Via email:

Keith Rose

EPA Region 10

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900

Seattle, WA 98101

Re: Comments: EPA Proposed Approval of Oregon’s SIP Submittal for Regional Haze 

and Best Available Retrofit Technology, Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0035

Dear Mr. Rose:

These comments are submitted on behalf of Sierra Club, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, 

Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Columbia Riverkeeper and Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council (the “Coalition”). The Coalition asks EPA to correct factual statements 

made in EPA’s proposed approval of Oregon’s State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) submission. 

The Coalition also urges EPA to reevaluate the reductions Oregon has proposed because of the 

uncertainty in Oregon’s proposed best available retrofit technology (“BART”) for the Portland 

General Electric Boardman coal plant (“PGE Boardman”).

On March 8, 2011, EPA proposed approving a SIP submission by Oregon that would address 

the requirements of the Regional Haze program and the implementation of BART requirements 

for sources in Oregon. 76 Fed. Reg. 12651. While the Coalition generally applauds Oregon’s 

ability to secure the permanent closure of PGE Boardman, this should not be purchased at the 

cost of following the law. The Coalition agrees that the closure of PGE Boardman at the end of 

2020 will provide marked improvement at all of the 14 Class I sites that are impacted by PGE 

Boardman. However, this improvement should not excuse the impact on public health and 

regional haze that PGE Boardman will have in the intervening decade.

I. EPA SHOULD CORRECT FACTUAL STATEMENTS IN ANY FINAL APPROVAL

The Coalition asks that, if EPA approves Oregon’s SIP submission for Regional Haze 

and BART, EPA correct or remove certain factual statements in its final approval. 

AUBREY BALDWIN

Staff Attorney & Clinical Professor

10015 SW Terwilliger Blvd

Portland, OR 97219

 (503) 768-6929

(503) 768-6642 

abaldwin@lclark.edu

www.peaclaw.org 
In EPA’s proposed approval, EPA describes PGE Boardman as “a 584 MW coal-fired 

electric utility.” 76 Fed. Reg. 12,651, 12,660 (Mar. 8, 2011). This is inconsistent with the 

description of the facility that Oregon provided and how the facility has been previously 

described. Oregon’s SIP submittal described PGE Boardman as a “617 Megawatt electric steam 

plant, coal burning.” Oregon Regional Haze Plan for Implementing Section 308 (40 C.F.R. 

51.308) of the Regional Haze Rule, §10.4.2 p.149 (Dec. 9, 2010). In a prior filing with the 

Securities & Exchange Commission, PGE described the facility as having a capacity of 600 MW. 

69 Fed. Reg. 61,065, 61,065 (Oct. 14, 2004). The discrepancy likely lies in the limitation on the 

amount of energy Boardman can supply to the power grid (600 MW), versus the physical 

capacity of the plant (617 MW). Both values exceed the 584 MW value that EPA uses. EPA 

should correct any final approval of Oregon’s SIP submittal to contain the proper capacity of 

PGE Boardman or simply remove the reference if the actual capacity of Boardman 

In addition, EPA states that PGE Boardman commenced construction in 1975. EPA 

should change this date to December 6, 1979, the date that PGE Boardman actually commenced 

construction,1 or simply remove the reference altogether.

II. OREGON HAS IMPROPERLY GRANTED AN EXCEPTION TO BART

Oregon’s SIP submittal proposes that BART for sulfur dioxide for PGE Boardman will 

be direct sorbent injection with an emission limitation of 0.4 lb/mmBtu (DSI-1). In addition, 

Oregon’s SIP proposes that reasonable further progress can be met through a more stringent 0.3 

lb/mmBtu limit (DSI-2). However, Oregon has conditioned the application of these emission 

limitations and allows PGE Boardman to comply with an alternative limit of 0.55 lb/mmBtu 

limit. 

The most concerning of the conditions is that PGE Boardman is excused from meeting 

the BART emission limitation if its emissions of particulate matter would increase above a 

certain level. This condition allows PGE Boardman to avoid the 0.4 lb/mmBtu or 0.3lb/mmBtu 

emission limitation if compliance would result in a “significant air quality impact” in PM2.5 or 

PM10 emissions. OAR 340-223-0030(3)(b)(C) (proposed). In describing the purpose of this 

condition to the Environmental Quality Commission (“EQC”), the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) phrased this condition as excusing PGE Boardman from these 

limits if it would “violate particulate standards.”2 However, even if a source has a “significant air 

quality impact,” it is not in violation simply because of its emissions. All this finding would do is 

trigger the applicability of the Oregon Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) program 

for PM10 or PM2.5. See OAR 340-224-0070(4) (requiring a facility that is significantly impacting 

an area, defined by reference to a “significant air quality impact,” to meet certain requirements of 

 1

 On December 6, 1979, PGE received its final permit authorizing construction and operation of

GE Boardman and thus commenced construction. The Coalition believes that PGE Boardman is 

not a BART eligible source, but rather is subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program. This is currently at issue in ongoing federal litigation in Sierra Club v. Portland 

General Electric, Civil No. 08-1136-HA (Dist. Or.).

2

 Staff Report to Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, from Dick Pedersen, Director 

Oregon DEQ, at 6 (2010) (Attachment 1.1) (Item K 000006).
the Oregon PSD program).

3 In other words, if the use of DSI-1 or DSI-2 would increase 

particulate emissions by as little as ten tons per year,4 PGE Boardman does not have to meet the 

emissions limitations that Oregon has proposed as BART.

This condition is inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. While Oregon could excuse the 

application of control equipment that is technologically infeasible—and has provided a condition 

to cover this situation—Oregon cannot exempt the application of technology simply because it 

triggers additional legal obligations. Oregon cannot excuse PGE Boardman from compliance 

with one requirement of the Clean Air Act (BART), in order to avoid another (PSD). The Act 

demands that PGE Boardman comply with all of its requirements, and that includes compliance 

with both of these programs. The triggering of the PSD program does not make the use of DSI-1 

or DSI-2 technologically infeasible; the facility is still allowed to operate even if a full PSD 

review is necessary. And there is no practical problem with complying with both of these 

requirements. If the application of control technology to meet BART triggers the application of 

PSD, PGE Boardman will simply need to go through the process of getting a PSD permit. Even 

if more stringent technology is required, such as a baghouse, Oregon has not provided any 

reason why this would be infeasible. This condition therefore cannot properly be based on the 

availability, technological feasibility, or control effectiveness of the DSI systems. 

This exception that Oregon has provided for PGE Boardman to exceed the BART and 

reasonable further progress emissions limitations is not based on either the BART analysis of 

EPA’s regulations or the factors outlined in the Clean Air Act.

III. OREGON HAS NOT PROVIDED A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR NOT CONSIDERING

DSI-2 AS BART

In Oregon’s SIP submittal, Oregon did not consider the lower emission limitation of 0.3 

lb/mmBtu (DSI-2) as part of its BART requirements, but instead only considered it to meet 

reasonable further progress after 2018. The DSI-2 limitation was not identified as 

technologically infeasible or cost prohibitive for BART. Oregon has allowed PGE Boardman to 

conduct studies into the feasibility of both DSI-1 and DSI-2. However, Oregon has provided no 

reason why the study of DSI-2 cannot be conducted “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later 

than five years after EPA approves the state SIP, as required for BART. In fact, there were no 

reasons provided as to why analysis of DSI-2 could not occur concurrently with the analysis of 

DSI-1. The implementation of DSI-2 will require no additional capital investment at PGE 

Boardman and only entails slightly higher operating costs for additional reagent. Oregon has 

failed to provide a practical or legal reason to delay the implementation of the more stringent 

DSI-2 limitation. Oregon’s failure to consider DSI-2 as BACT is arbitrary.

 3

 In DEQ’s actual analysis this is spelled out much a bit more clarity, as DEQ addresses PGE’s 

concern with triggering the PSD program; even here however, DEQ is less than clear on the 

reason why this exception has been adopted. Oregon Regional Haze Plan for Implementing 

Section 308 (40 C.F.R. 51.308) of the Regional Haze Rule, §10.5 p.155–56 (Dec. 9, 2010).

4

 The triggering levels—15 tons for PM10 and 10 tons for PM2.5—amount to approximately a 2% 

and 5% increase, respectfully, over PGE Boardman’s 2005 actual emissions of 696 tons of PM10 

and 181 tons of PM2.5.
IV. EPA SHOULD ONLY ACCOUNT FOR REDUCTIONS THAT ARE GUARANTEED 

BY THE SIP.

The Coalition asks EPA to reevaluate the environmental benefits from Oregon’s SIP 

submittal based only the reductions that EPA approval of the SIP would actually require. In the 

alternative, the Coalitions asks that in approving Oregon’s SIP submittal, EPA interpret the 

conditions contained in OAR 340-223-0030(3) as requiring EPA approval or concurrence with 

DEQ’s determinations prior to implementation of relaxed standards.

Both Oregon and EPA have analyzed reductions of sulfur dioxides from PGE Boardman 

based on the implementation of both the DSI-1 and DSI-2 emissions limitations. However, 

Oregon’s SIP submittal is very clear that these benefits are contingent on the pilot studies that are 

proposed as part of the SIP. In other words, by approving Oregon’s SIP submittal, EPA is not

guaranteeing the environmental benefits described. These benefits are possible; but equally 

possible is that PGE Boardman will be allowed to operate at a higher emission level, reducing 

the benefits of Oregon’s SIP. In deciding whether or not Oregon’s SIP submittal meets the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act, EPA should evaluate the minimum protections that this SIP 

will provide. 

This is consistent with how analysis is conducted for the benefits of other SIP provisions. For 

instance, in evaluating the environmental benefits from the reductions in nitrogen oxides through 

the application of BART, EPA would not consider whether PGE Boardman will actually operate 

at below the required emission limit (or for that matter at less than full permitted capacity). This 

is eminently reasonable as the only benefits that can and should be evaluated are those actually

required by the SIP.

EPA should therefore consider the environmental benefits of Oregon’s SIP submittal based 

on what emission factor the SIP actually requires for sulfur dioxide: 0.55 lb/mmBtu. Oregon’s 

SIP submittal does require this minimum level of reduction to be met, regardless of the results of 

the pilot studies. This, therefore, is the minimum level of protection Oregon’s SIP would 

provide. EPA’s analysis of the environmental benefits should be based on these emissions, not 

the conditional limits of 0.3 or 0.4lb/mmBtu.

Alternatively, or in addition, EPA should interpret the determinations contained in OAR 340-

223-0030(3)(b) as requiring explicit EPA approval or concurrence. As it currently is written, it is 

unclear whether Oregon’s SIP submittal would require or allow any public comment on DEQ’s 

determination that DSI-1 or DSI-2 is technologically infeasible, would inhibit compliance with 

Oregon’s mercury rules, or would trigger PSD applicability.5 Interpreting this provision to 

require EPA involvement would help safeguard the public from potentially arbitrary decisions 

excusing compliance with the requirements of BART. The Coalition does not believe that 

Oregon intends to remove these decisions from public scrutiny, but because they will be 

 5

 While the SIP submittal does require a modification of PGE Boardman’s Title V permit, EPA 

only reviews to determine, and can only object, if the Title V permit does not meet the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. Because these conditions would be incorporated into the SIP 

and become part of the Act, any determination by DEQ would meet the requirements of the Act, 

no matter how arbitrary.
incorporated into Oregon’s SIP, the Coalition believes safeguards are necessary to protect the 

public.